Caller Id Service Faces Uncertain Future At Puc Hearing

November 05, 1989|by RON DEVLIN, The Morning Call

Caller ID, the controversial telephone service proposed by Bell of Pennsylvania, faces an uncertain future as the Public Utility Commission prepares to consider it at its weekly meeting Thursday in Harrisburg.

Robert F. Frazier, a prosecutor in the PUC's Office of Trial Staff, said the commission's four members appear equally divided on the issue. The PUC has five members, but one seat is vacant.

"It looks like a 50-50 situation," said Frazier, who said opinions on the issue have been evenly divided between opponents and proponents around the state. "It's a very difficult issue."

Caller ID, as the name implies, identifies the caller's phone number before the recipient of a call answers the phone. Between the first and second rings, the caller's number is flashed on a digital device attached to the recipient's phone.

Designed to combat obscene and annoying calls, Caller ID provides information that allows the recipient to decide whether or not to answer the phone. It also stores the numbers of up to 30 callers, allowing the recipient to identify the source of the annoying call and perhaps file a complaint.

Users of the service would purchase a Caller Identifier, the device attached to the phone, for about $40 to $70. Bell will charge $6.50 a month for the service.

A Bell spokesman said that if the service is approved this week, Caller ID would go into effect in Philadelphia and Harrisburg early next year. It would be offered in the Lehigh Valley area in September.

Bell asked the PUC to approve Caller ID earlier this year as part of a package of new services. The PUC approved several new services - including Call Trace, Call Block and Call Return - but postponed action on Caller ID.

The PUC asked to have Bell's Caller ID proposal reviewed by an administrative law judge. After hearings in four locations throughout the state, including the Lehigh Valley, Judge Michael C. Schnierle issued an opinion in September.

Schnierle recommended Bell be prohibited from implementing Caller ID unless it were offered with a device that would allow callers to block transmission of their numbers to recipients. Each time callers would dial the phone, they would have to punch in a code that would block transmission of their number - otherwise, the recipient would get the number. The blocking device, however, would work only on Touch Tone phones.

Under Schnierle's recommendation, which is not binding on the PUC, Bell would have to provide the blocking service free of charge to all telephone subscribers. Bell opposes blocking, contending it would defeat the purpose of the Caller ID system.

Schnierle's opinion was based, in part, on his interpretation of the state's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, which prohibits the installation of a "trap and trace device" without obtaining a court order. He ruled that Caller ID was a trap and trace device, a type of equipment used by undercover agents to tap phone lines.

Schnierle's interpretation of the wiretap law has been challenged by Bell, the state Attorney General's office and the PUC trial staff.

In an exception to Schnierle's opinion, Attorney General Ernest Preate found that Caller ID does not violate the wiretap law.

"Without disputing (Schnierle's) finding that Caller ID is a trapping and trace device, the service proposed entails the use of a device by the phone company with the consent of the consumer," Preate found. "This is set forth as an exception in the wiretap law."

Frazier, whose office favors Caller ID, argued the administrative law judge's interpretation went beyond the scope of the wiretap law. He contended the law was not intended to restrict a consumer from subscribing to an information service, but was aimed at putting limits on government surveillance.

Aside from the wiretap issue, Caller ID has drawn criticism from civil liberties groups, consumer organizations, law enforcement authorities and social service professionals worried about privacy and confidentiality issues.

At the Allentown hearing, held June 1 in the United Auto Workers building on Mack Boulevard, Lehigh Valley social service professionals said they feared Caller ID would have a chilling effect on calls to AIDS hotlines and could cause problems for battered women.

Bonnie McDonald, director of Turning Point of Lehigh Valley, testified that she feared Caller ID would allow the husbands of battered women to track them down. She said women who have left their spouses usually must call them to make financial or child care arrangements. When the women call, Caller ID would give the husband the number of the phone from which the call was made.

"She will have to go to a pay phone every time she wants to talk with him about their children or send the children to the pay phone every time they want to talk with their father," McDonald testified.

Bell spokesman Eric Rabe said the phone company has agreed to provide the shelters for victims of spousal abuse with ways of circumventing Caller ID, free of charge.